[kenrexford]

I also play 3♥ as GF, which makes this a non-problem.

[655321]

I also have always played 3♥ as gameforcing.

1♦ 1♥
2♦ 3♥

is different from

1♦ 1♥
2♣ 3♥

The first auction does not have 4th suit available. And, there is much less need for a weak 2♥ rebid - opener has limited their hand, and shown a 6 card suit.
So I play that 2♥ is reasonably constructive, and 3♥ is forcing.

Not sure if this is standard or not.

[sceptic]

I bid 2 diamonds, unless pard knows I will bid 2 hearts with 3 cards, then use what ever methods available to determine what kind is 2heart raise I have made

[mcphee]

Nice hand anytime we find partner with any sort of invite we are clearly worth some strong move to accept. Any game force hand they might hold we have slam aspirations for sure. 2D getting the 6th trump across could be best but raising H sure seems more reasonable. One point strongly in favor of the H raise is the opps have been silent suggesting this is clearly our hand, finding the best strain for game is my initial interest, slam next. 2H is almost an underbid really, our hand got much better on the bidding to date.
Those that use methods to ask about the type of major suit raise should easily reach 6H. Even not the auction may go:
1D 1H
2H 2S
4C key card landing in 6H.

[Lobowolf]

655321, on Aug 13 2008, 08:10 AM, said:

And, there is much less need for a weak 2♥ rebid - opener has limited their hand, and shown a 6 card suit.

Not so convinced about this part of your reason. Hearts still score better than diamonds, and above and beyond that, it's generally better to play in responder's weak suit than openers. The opening hand will have outside entries to potentially set up and use diamonds; the responding hand can be close to worthless if hearts aren't trump, and you don't have to bump up a level to get there.

[mikeh]

I don't understand how one can argue that playing WJS allows one to play that 3♥ is forcing... I note that Gerben says that a rebid of 2♥ is 9-11. Ok, playing that range for 2♥ frees up 3♥ as gf, but it has zero to do with wjs.... obviously the young german experts who play this method use constructive jumps shifts... up to 8 hcp and a 6 card suit. That is surely playable, but is not remotely a weak jump shift as commonly understood.

Going back to the problem as posted, I would bid 2♥ at mps and 2♦ at imps.

At imps, partner is more likely to keep the bidding alive than at mps when he has a borderline invitational hand, since he will be aware of the game bonus as much as I am, and 2♦ seems to me to be just fine in that area. I appreciate that 2♥ will usually sound more encouraging than 2♦, but that will come into play on some hands where he has shape and a 4-3 heart fit will do poorly so I think that is a bit of a wash. In the meantime, slam bidding may be greatly facilitated by knowledge of a source of tricks, as indeed it ought to have been here.

At mps, if we are playing a partscore, diamonds has to play 2 tricks better than hearts for 2♦ to be right, and rebidding 2♦ would leave me poorly placed if the opps balance. Whereas, if I bid 2♥ and it goes P P [2♠] or [3♣], I have a descriptive 3♦ call available.

[jdonn]

I disagree with the 2♥ at mps, 2♦ at imps posts. If anything I think there is a reasonable case to do it the other way around, since the main benefit of 2♥ is to find a close game if partner has like Axxxx of hearts and diamond shortness and would pass 2♦. Anyway I think the difference between them is so fine, and so random from hand to hand, that it's hard to justify bidding differently at different forms of scoring by anything other than feel (which I admit I use to justify many bids.)

BTW I find the actual slam much easier to bid after a raise than after a diamond rebid, using reasonable followup methods. South can see slam opposite the actual hand minus the spade king so he will certainly try, and strike gold when north fully cooperates.

[mikeh]

I admit that I might miss 6♥ after 2♦, altho I am sure I'd reach a slam... 6♦ is not as good (or as high scoring) as 6♥ but it is still better than playing 4♥ (unless it goes down )

1♦  1♥
2♦  2♠
3♥  4♦
4♥  4♠
5N pick a slam is the best I can come up with to reach 6♥

Otherwise, over 4♠, opener can bid 6♦, which has to have a play on the auction.

How one reaches 6♥ after a single raise will probably depend on methods.

I use 2♠ as a simple relay, and opener would respond 3♣, maximum with 3 trumps...unfortunately, this doesn't do a heck of a lot for responder who can't count tricks and can't count controls.

I am not saying that one shouldn't get to 6♥ after a raise, but I'd like to see how you'd bid it, and reflect on whether the chosen route requires an optimistic assumption at any point.. I don't know any method that identifies 3 trump and a stiff club, and surely we need that? Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx makes for a poor slam and I suspect that most of the 2♥ bidders would raise with this as well as the given hand...

[han]

Our auction might start:

1D - 1H
2H - 2S (ask)
3C (max with 3-card support) - 3D (asks for shortness)
3S (club shortness) - Yummy!

[jdonn]

My methods are

1♦ 1♥
2♥ 2♠
3♦ 3♠
4♣ 4♦
4NT etc.

2♠ asking, my rebids are everything below 3♥ is natural and shows three trumps. They may be minimum or maximum (maximum bids on over 3♥ by the asker of course) and are non-forcing but not usually passed (the only hand that passes is an invitation with four trumps that needed four trumps opposite AND a max to bid game, and otherwise thinks it has found a safer partscore.) The rest was cuebidding. Maybe south is good enough for keycard over 4♣, after all he doesn't even need the spade king for slam.

Most of my friends use a followup structure more like han's, something like the steps are min 3, max 3, min 4, max 4. I like mine which lets you play a better partscore from time to time. Higher bids are obvious (3♥ min with 4, 3♠/4♣/4♦ shortness with 4, 3NT 3433 or close max nf, 4♥ max with 4 no shortness.)

I think you would bid 6♥ after 2♦ also

[han]

I was going to post that my auction might go 1D-1H-2H-2S-3D if playing with jdonn but you beat me to it.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

young german experts who play this method use constructive jumps shifts... up to 8 hcp and a 6 card suit. That is surely playable, but is not remotely a weak jump shift as commonly understood in North America

FYP. WJS as 5-8 is quite common in Europe. I personally think it's a far superior range to the American one, comes up a ton more often, and opens up sequences for the stronger hands.

[pclayton]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 13 2008, 09:51 AM, said:

Quote

young german experts who play this method use constructive jumps shifts... up to 8 hcp and a 6 card suit. That is surely playable, but is not remotely a weak jump shift as commonly understood in North America

FYP. WJS as 5-8 is quite common in Europe. I personally think it's a far superior range to the American one, comes up a ton more often, and opens up sequences for the stronger hands.

When forced to play WJS (and it isn't that often), I play 4-8. Personally I think 0-5 or something like that is unplayable.

[mikeh]

han, on Aug 13 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

Our auction might start:

1D - 1H
2H - 2S (ask)
3C (max with 3-card support) - 3D (asks for shortness)
3S (club shortness) - Yummy!

That's a nice method, Han.. but a question... how does responder set diamonds as trump when he has some 4=4 red suit hand, for example?

Surely he asks about heart support first, because a 4=4 heart fit will generally establish trumps, but after finding out that the fit is only 4-3, maybe he wants to play in diamonds? After all, when opener has 3♥s, he will always (for me, at least) have 5+ diamonds.

I would have thought that the natural way to set diamonds would be to bid 3♦, but you have co-opted that as a shortness ask. And, I assume, once we invoke the shortness ask, any later non-jump diamond bid will be a cue-bid.

If you have a solution, I would really like to hear it, because the use of 3♦ as shortness has a lot going for it... but I am uncomfortable with the notion that we can't play a probable trump suit.

[jdonn]

I'm going to try to beat han to it since we are bitterly feuding today. 3♦ forcing directly over 2♥?

[han]

mikeh, on Aug 13 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

That's a nice method, Han.. but a question... how does responder set diamonds as trump when he has some 4=4 red suit hand, for example?

What does 1D-1H-2H-3D show for you Mike? I'll assume in what follows that it is forcing but shows 5 hearts so that it can't be used with those 4-4 hands.

If you want to "set trump" over 3C showing the maximum with 3 hearts then you can bid 4D (a direct 4D would have been a splinter so this isn't). But it would be better to be able set diamonds as trmp after asking for shortness. We haven't discussed this, we should. Knowing about partner's shortness seems so natular and important to me that I'd rather be able ask for it now without the ability to set diamonds as trump than give up on it. Once I hear about partners shortness I can always jump to 5D or 6D next, or perhaps ask keycards in hearts first and then place the contract.

Note that this is the only possible auction where you can set the minor as trump (forcing) at the three level. 1C - 1H; 2H - 2S; 2NT - 3C and 1D -1S; 2S - 2NT; 3C - 3D are non-forcing and after 1m - 1S - 2S - 2NT - 3D there is no room.

[mikeh]

Of course 3♦ over 2♥ is forcing, but that isn't exactly the answer to the question

1stly, who plays 3♦ as setting diamonds as trump??? Or (on a more moderate level) even suggesting diamonds as trump? I would expect that most would use 3♦ as F1, not gf, and as a form of game-try, which might later be retroactively viewed as a cuebid, should responder persist in the auction. Diamonds would be brought back into play in the slam zone by a pick a slam call, if ever.

2ndly, the question was addressed to Han's use of 3♦, over 3♣, as a shortness ask... in the context of responder finding out that hearts were 4-3 rather than the hoped-for 4=4.... so even if one used 3♦ over 2♥ as unambiguously long diamonds (and I await being told that anyone uses this... I am not saying no-one does or that it is wrong to do so.. ), that 'solution' is irrelevant to the problem

BTW, Han, I am not sure why 3♦ over 2♥ promises 5♥. Maybe it does/should because otherwise responder should use the relay of 2♠. If that is the case, then it seems even less likely, than I had assumed above, that we would be trying to establish a true diamond fit via 3♦. Again, I am not saying it shouldn't promise 5 hearts.. indeed, thinking on it, I had trouble imagining a hand on which I would bid 3♦ without 5 hearts.

[han]

I am very surprised to read your suggestion that 1D-1H-2H-3H can be a cuebid. It is either a gametry or a slam try, but certainly promises diamond length, not Ax or something like that. If you have Ax in diamonds and you want to make a slam try in hearts then you will start with 2S rather than 3D. Nobody suggested that it sets trump, and responder might or might not be interested in playing in diamonds.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Aug 13 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

Of course 3♦ over 2♥ is forcing, but that isn't exactly the answer to the question

There are some that don't play 3♦ as forcing but they aren't on BBF

Quote

1stly, who plays 3♦ as setting diamonds as trump??? Or (on a more moderate level) even suggesting diamonds as trump?

For me, 3♦ shows length, so it has to suggest trump, at least in part.

However, ferreting out a 4-4 versus 5-3 / 5-4 isn't so clear. How is opener supposed to know to slow it down with 5♦'s but be excited with 4?

Quote

I would expect that most would use 3♦ as F1, not gf, and as a form of game-try, which might later be retroactively viewed as a cuebid, should responder persist in the auction.

I can't ever imagine bidding 3♦ with less than 4 if I have a 2♠ / 2N gadget available. If I have a balanced 20 count and 5-6 hearts, I won't start with 3♦.

Quote

Diamonds would be brought back into play in the slam zone by a pick a slam call, if ever.

This seems grim. Why can't we agree diamonds via 1♦-1♥-2♥=3♦-4♦-?

Quote

2ndly, the question was addressed to Han's use of 3♦, over 3♣, as a shortness ask... in the context of responder finding out that hearts were 4-3 rather than the hoped-for 4=4.... so even if one used 3♦ over 2♥ as unambiguously long diamonds (and I await being told that anyone uses this... I am not saying no-one does or that it is wrong to do so.. ), that 'solution' is irrelevant to the problem

I play it this way and this is how the 2♠ / 2N call was originally taught to me. It's standard on the West Coast (below most of the 48th parallel evidently )

Quote

BTW, Han, I am not sure why 3♦ over 2♥ promises 5♥. Maybe it does/should because otherwise responder should use the relay of 2♠. If that is the case, then it seems even less likely, than I had assumed above, that we would be trying to establish a true diamond fit via 3♦. Again, I am not saying it shouldn't promise 5 hearts.. indeed, thinking on it, I had trouble imagining a hand on which I would bid 3♦ without 5 hearts.

I can see 3♣ (or 2N - assuming this shows spades) as confirming 5 hearts, but why should 3♦? What would you bid with a 17 count and 4♥/5♦? I know some play inverted raises that may hide a four card major but this is far from standard.

[Echognome]

Yet another way to play it is:

1m - 1M;
2M - 2M+1;
?

Step 1: Min with 3
Step 2: Max with 3 and shortage
Step 3: Min with 4
Step 4: Max with 4 and no shortage
Step 5: Max with 3 and no shortage
Higher: Max with 4 and specific shortage

I actually like Josh's variant. However, I'm curious how Josh separates out the min and max with 3. What if responder has an invite with 4 trumps? How does he distinguish between say:

♠Axx ♥Kxx ♦KJTxxx ♣x

and

♠Axx ♥Kxx ♦AKxxxx ♣x

Won't both go 1♦ - 1♥; 2♥ - 2♠; 3♦?